This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/19/2021 at 23:33:31 (UTC).

RONALD E FOSTER JR ET AL VS ARTHUR RICHARD TRIMBLE JR

Case Summary

On 03/03/2017 RONALD E FOSTER JR filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ARTHUR RICHARD TRIMBLE JR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are YOLANDA OROZCO, LAURA A. SEIGLE, EDWARD B. MORETON, JR. and AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Other.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2708

  • Filing Date:

    03/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

YOLANDA OROZCO

LAURA A. SEIGLE

EDWARD B. MORETON, JR.

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Respondents and Plaintiffs

FOSTER RONALD E. III

BEST WEST CARRIER INC

FOSTER RONALD E. JR.

Defendants and Appellants

DLR EXPRESS INC. DOE 1

TRIMBLE ARTHUR RICHARD JR.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

ANDERSON RICHARD G. ESQ.

KING NOLAN F.

SAYLOR JEFFERSON

SAYLOR JEFFERSON ESQ.

SAYLOR JEFFERSON G. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SHAFFERY JOHN ESQ.

DIEGUEZ MARCELO ADRIAN

BENKNER JASON ARTHUR

BERGER MICHAEL JAY

SHAFFERY JOHN HUBERT ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Substitution of Attorney

3/23/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

3/24/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Proof of Service by Mail

3/25/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Default Judgment

5/4/2020: Default Judgment

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

5/28/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

6/19/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

7/24/2020: Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

7/31/2020: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

Notice of Stay of Proceedings (Bankruptcy)

8/3/2020: Notice of Stay of Proceedings (Bankruptcy)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/3/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil)

8/5/2020: Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil)

Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal - APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL NOA: 07/24/20 B306917

1/22/2021: Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal - APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL NOA: 07/24/20 B306917

Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B306917

1/22/2021: Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - APPEAL DISMISSED B306917

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: BANKRUPTCY)

2/1/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: BANKRUPTCY)

Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment

2/8/2021: Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment

Order - Dismissal

3/22/2018: Order - Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

11/18/2019: Request for Dismissal

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ARACELI FOSTER

11/18/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ARACELI FOSTER

78 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/08/2021
  • DocketAcknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment; Filed by DLR Express, Inc. (Doe 1) (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/01/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27, Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReBankruptcy) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/01/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Bankruptcy)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed (B306917); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • DocketAppellate Order Dismissing Appeal (NOA: 07/24/20 B306917); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by DLR Express, Inc. (Doe 1) (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Stay of Proceedings (Bankruptcy); Filed by DLR Express, Inc. (Doe 1) (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketNtc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by DLR Express, Inc. (Doe 1) (Appellant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by DLR Express, Inc. (Doe 1) (Appellant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
113 More Docket Entries
  • 03/22/2018
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by Arthur Richard Trimble, Jr. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketANSWER BY DEFENDANT ARTHUR RICHARD TRIMBLE, JR. TO PLAINITFFS' UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Arthur Richard Trimble, Jr. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/21/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/21/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Ronald E. Foster, III (Plaintiff); Ronald E. Foster, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ronald E. Foster, III (Plaintiff); Ronald E. Foster, Jr. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****2708    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT DLR EXPRESS, INC.’S MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT; QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

On March 3, 2017, plaintiff Ronald E. Foster, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Arthur Richard Trimble Jr. (“Trimble”) for injuries sustained in a semi-truck vs. semi-truck collision. On November 16, 2018, Plaintiff named DLR Express, Inc. (“DLR”) as Doe 1. Default was entered as to DLR on March 7, 2019. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Trimble. On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against DLR. On January 23, 2020, DLR filed this motion to set aside default under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473.5 and 473(d) on grounds that it lacked actual notice and because it was not properly served.

Improper Service

DLR argues the default judgment is void because DLR was not properly served with the summons and complaint. “The court . . . may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 473, subd. (d).) “‘A default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’ Under section 473, subdivision (d), the court may set aside a default judgment which is valid on its face, but void, as a matter of law, due to improper service.” (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200, citations omitted.) Relief on this basis generally requires consideration of extrinsic evidence. (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180.)

DLR contends service was improper because it was not served at its office located at 13058 S. Bon View, Ontario, California 91761. The proof of service of summons shows that the summons, complaint, and other papers were served via substitute service on Fatima Del Carmen De La Rosa as agent for service for DLR. The proof of service states that on January 24, 2019, the documents were left with Martha Lopez as the person in charge at 14050 Cherry Avenue, Suite R-15 in Fontana, California and a copy was mailed there on January 25, 2019 at 2:45 p.m. DLR argues that this Fontana address is not its “office or usual place of business,” and that its physical address was not unknown because the information is readily available on the internet or from the other defendant Trimble.

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (a) provides a procedure for serving a corporation: “In lieu of personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the person to be served . . ., a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address, with the person who is apparently in charge thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint . . . to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.”

DLR argues Plaintiff did not comply with section 415.20, subdivision (a) because the proof of service states “physical address unknown” even though Plaintiff knew DLR’s physical address in Ontario, and even though the Ontario address can be found on the Internet. Therefore, DLR argues, Plaintiff should have left a copy of the summons and complaint at the Ontario address.

The president of DLR states in her declaration that DLR Freight, Inc. and DLR shared the Ontario office, and the other defendant Trimble regularly visited her at the Ontario office. She states the Fontana address is a commercial mail receiving agency where DLR receives mail. She states she does not know a Martha Lopez, and the commercial mail receiving agency did not tell her about any legal documents and did not give her the complaint and summons. She did receive some legal documents in the mail at the Fontana address in 2019 but says she did not understand what they were.

Plaintiff argues DLR has always had the Fontana address as its address for service. Plaintiff argues that the only address he knew for DLR was the Fontana address, and he had no obligation to ask Trimble, who he was suing, for DLR’s address. Plaintiff’s counsel attaches to his declaration as Exhibit 1 Secretary of State forms for DLR. The first form is for Zapata Transports Group, Inc., which according to Exhibit 7, changed its name to DLR Express, Inc. The form in Exhibit 1 shows De La Rosa filling the role as officer, director, and agent for service of process for DLR. The form lists the Fontana address as the address of the principal executive officer, the officers, directors, and agent of service of process. In addition Exhibit 4 to the declaration contains a screen shot of the Secretary of State’s website showing DLR’s agent for service of process is De La Rosa, with the Fontana address listed as the address for service of process, the entity address, and the mailing address. In her declaration, Martha Lopez confirms she put the complaint and summons in DLR’s mailbox and DLR picked them up.

DLR has no evidence that Plaintiff knew the Ontario address was its physical address. DLR’s Secretary of State filings list the Fontana address as its physical address, mailing address, and address for its agent for service. None lists the Ontario address. Therefore, it was reasonable for Plaintiff to conclude that the Fontana address was DLR’s address for all purposes as well as the address for its agent for service. Plaintiff left the summons and complaint at the Fontana address during usual office hours and with the person apparently in charge, and then mailed the documents to that address, thereby complying with section 415.20, subdivision (a), both for service at the agent’s physical address and the agent’s mailing address.

Lack of Actual Notice

DLR also argues it lacked actual notice of the complaint and summons. Where a service of summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action, the party may move the court to set aside default and default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 473.5, subd. (a).) The motion must be made no later than two years after entry of default or 180 days after service of a written notice that default or default judgment has been entered. (Ibid.) The party must act with diligence upon learning of the judgment. (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180; Code Civ. Proc., ; 473.5, subd. (a).) The party seeking to set aside must also submit a declaration that lack of actual notice was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect and a copy of the proposed answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 473.5, subd. (b).)

Fatima De La Rosa states she did not understand DLR was involved in this action until January 2020. She acknowledges receiving legal documents sometime in 2019 but thought the documents were mailed to DLR as a mistake. She then received a large packet of legal documents by mail in November or December 2019 and sought legal counsel in early 2020. The Court docket also shows Plaintiff mailed the request for entry of default to the Fontana address on March 7, 2019. De La Rosa states she was depressed in 2019 and had a cousin and uncle die that year.

Based on these facts, the Court cannot conclude that DLR lacked actual notice in time to defend the action. De La Rosa received legal documents in 2019, saw that they pertained to DLR, and chose not to follow-up.

Based on the foregoing, DLR’s motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAFFERY JOHN ESQ.